Michelle Bachmann R-Wingnuttia :"Don't Let Them Palinize Me!"

Artie60438 wrote:

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

OK Artie... Since you seem so interested in this, I'd be really interested in hearing your answer to this question.

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

OK Artie... Since you seem so interested in this, I'd be really interested in hearing your answer to this question.

Why are you dragging this subject out of bounds? Artie answered you. I answered you. It does not have anything to do with slavery today. It crosses all nationalites, all skin colors, etc.

YES, Artie said children are better off with a two parent home. If you want to inject race, a significant, individual race besides BLACK people, then WHITES are guilty, too. Enough yet? All you seem to do is want to argue even when someone politely answers your questions honestly and straight-forward. Find a better suject to talk aout. My God, RACE and SLAVERY has nothing to do with today.

Pick a modern day subject that really reflects what society has turned into. Speaking of "society," YOU are one that brings up stupid subjects. I pity any BLACK friends you claim you have, cuz you are a phony sons a b.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Do "full blown lying idiots" include the Wash Post,www.telegraph.co.uk,and OMG [url=http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/07/09/bachmann-stands-by-marriage-pledge-that-links-slavery-to-black-family-values/]FOX NEWS???

Watching you continuing to defend this is hilarious. Keep up the good work!

If the Washington Post, www.telegraph.co.uk, and Fox News [b]seriously maintain that the statement condones slavery, then yes, I include them among the full-blown lying idiots, right along with those on this forum who choose to place themselves in that category.
And I'm not defending anything, because there is nothing to defend. My only purpose for even continuing this thread is to provide a pulpit for certain bottom-feeding posters to demonstrate how disingenuous and disgustingly sleazy they can be in their attempts to falsely smear a political opponent.
And those posters have not disappointed me yet.

Bachmann and the idiot that put that ridiculous "pledge" smeared themselves. They didn't need any help from me.

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

OK Artie... Since you seem so interested in this, I'd be really interested in hearing your answer to this question.

Overall,Yes,but it also depends on individual situations.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Would you agree that a child is better off raised by a mother and father in a two-parent household. Yes or No?

OK Artie... Since you seem so interested in this, I'd be really interested in hearing your answer to this question.

Overall,Yes,but it also depends on individual situations.

Yeah. Well, for example, are you saying that "overall," a heterosexual couple provides a better environment for raising a child than a same sex couple does? The reason that I ask is because you specifically cited a mother and a father in your question.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well, for example, are you saying that "overall," a heterosexual couple provides a better environment for raising a child than a same sex couple does? The reason that I ask is because you specifically cited a mother and a father in your question.

No,not at all. I used the term mother and father because the discussion was focused on the period of slavery. In 1860,AFAIK, then weren't any same sex couples and if there were they certainly wouldn't be announcing it.

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well, for example, are you saying that "overall," a heterosexual couple provides a better environment for raising a child than a same sex couple does? The reason that I ask is because you specifically cited a mother and a father in your question.

No,not at all. I used the term mother and father because the discussion was focused on the period of slavery. In 1860,AFAIK, then weren't any same sex couples and if there were they certainly wouldn't be announcing it.

OK. Thanks for the clarification.

I said two parents instead of one, also.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

OK Artie... Since you seem so interested in this, I'd be really interested in hearing your answer to this question.

Overall,Yes,but it also depends on individual situations.

[b]That wasn't an essay question. He asked for a yes or a no. Can you do that, or are you going to try and weasel out like you just did?

Did someone get up on the wrong side of the bed.......again? After a slight clarification Scorpion seemed to be satisfied with the answer I gave.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well, for example, are you saying that "overall," a heterosexual couple provides a better environment for raising a child than a same sex couple does?

No,not at all.

[b]So, Artie - are you claiming that same sex couples always make better parents than heterosexual couples?
Yes or no?
Remember, this is not an essay question.

I never claimed that,but leave it to you to try and invent something I never said

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

I never claimed that,but leave it to you to try and invent something I never said

Inventing something that no one ever said is exactly what you did when you misrepresented this statement as an endorsement of slavery:
[/b]
"Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an AfricanAmerican baby born after the election of the USA‟s first African-American President."

I misrepresented nothing. Most people saw it for what it was and in the end Bachmann had to disavow it and it was removed from the pledge. It seems that almost every time she opens her mouth about slavery,her remarks come back to bite. This time was no different.

Quote :

[b]It's kind of tricky for you when someone holds you to your own standards, isn't it?

The only thing tricky is trying to figure out what the hell you're talking about

Yeah. Well I deliberately tried to stay out of this discussion, but now that it's over, I do have some thoughts.

First of all, I think that it's completely bogus to go after Bachmann over her views on slavery. The "pledge" that she signed had a decidedly "un-pc" preamble. There is no doubt about that. But the fact is that Michelle never actually said anything that even remotely suggested that she felt that blacks were "better off" under slavery. In fact, if you look at her prior statements on the subject, it's pretty clear that she is firmly in the "anti-slavery" camp. (even though she thinks that John Quincy Adams is a "founding father")

All the controversy surrounding this issue has diverted attention from the rest of the pledge that she signed.

Here's a link to it....

http://www.thefamilyleader.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/themarriagevow.final_.7.7.111.pdf

There is plenty of stuff in it to criticize. Why focus on what amounts to a "gaffe" by the folks who produced the "pledge?"

I feel compelled to say something, because I've objected to mis-characterizations of statements by other politicians in the past, and this really is no different. In fact, it's even worse, because Bachmann didn't even say anything about slavery in this case. She simply signed the "vow."

Again, if you read the actual "vow," there is plenty of stuff in there to object to... focusing almost exclusively on this (since retracted) issue is counter productive, at least IMHO.

Hell, I don't know if anyone noticed, but Romney has refused to sign the pledge, even with the slavery passage removed from the preamble.

Romney refuses to sign anti-gay marriage pledge]

Romney's spokesman even went so far as to call the pledge "undignified and inappropriate."

Quote :

Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Romney, told The Associated Press in a written statement Tuesday that Romney "strongly supports traditional marriage," but that the oath "contained references and provisions that were undignified and inappropriate for a presidential campaign."

All this noise about Bachmann and slavery reminds me of the Palin "eye rolling" incident. It's much ado about nothing. As I said, there are lots of things in the pledge that are worth objecting to that are far more damning than this manufactured controversy.

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well I deliberately tried to stay out of this discussion, but now that it's over, I do have some thoughts.

First of all, I think that it's completely bogus to go after Bachmann over her views on slavery. The "pledge" that she signed had a decidedly "un-pc" preamble. There is no doubt about that. But the fact is that Michelle never actually said anything that even remotely suggested that she felt that blacks were "better off" under slavery. In fact, if you look at her prior statements on the subject, it's pretty clear that she is firmly in the "anti-slavery" camp. (even though she thinks that John Quincy Adams is a "founding father")

Bottom line is she signed it and made no attempt to distance herself from it until the controversy. We don't need a POTUS that signs things without thinking of the consequences. The first word of the vow is "Therefore". That indicates agreement with the slavery statement set forth in the preamble.

Quote :

Hell, I don't know if anyone noticed, but Romney has refused to sign the pledge, even with the slavery passage removed from the preamble.
Romney's spokesman even went so far as to call the pledge "undignified and inappropriate."

No surprise. Romney is one of the few R's that still has a grasp on sanity.

happy jack wrote:

Well, as I said earlier, my only purpose for even bothering with this thread was to provide a pulpit for certain bottom-feeding posters to demonstrate how disingenuous and disgustingly sleazy they can be in their attempts to falsely smear a political opponent.
Those posters have not disappointed me yet, and I've no doubt that they will break out the lies, the sleaze, the self-righteousness, and the gross misrepresentations of fact again in the future, though probably on a different topic.
But for now, my work is done.

Don't despair. One day you may even win an argument.

Great picture that really captures the crazy..

A Michelle Malkin birdcage liner as a rebuttal? :rolfcry: She's just as loony as Bachmann.

In case anyone thought Newsweek just cherry picked that photo here's a bunch of outtakes from the photo shoot. She looks even crazier in some of them,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/newsweek/galleries/2011/08/08/michelle-bachmann-newsweek-cover-photos.html

Was Newsweek's Bachmann photo really weirder than her tea party SOTU response video?

Quote :

And here's a still image from Bachmann's disastrous tea party response to the State of the Union:

Remember,

Quote :

Bachmann controlled the video feed for her SOTU response. The stagecraft was her decision, not the media's, and yet she looked even stranger then than she does now on the cover of Newsweek.

Maybe at some point the Bachmannbots will realize that the problem is with their candidate, not the camera.